Institute of Historic Building Conservation No 98 March 2007 Energy-efficient conservation David Heath: my day with Picasso
FJ?RP LKPBOS>QFLK >PQD>QB EOFPQ@ERO@E QOBBQ >PQ OLJB LJBOPBQ Q C BKNRFOFBPµKFJ?RP@LKPBOS>QFLK@LJ TTTKFJ?RP@LKPBOS>QFLK@LJ O@EFQB@QRO>I @LKPBOS>QLOP PMB@F>IFPFKD FK QEB @IB>KFKD @LKPBOS>QFLK OBM>FO >KA OBMI>@BJBKQ LC >II QVMBP LC J>PLKOV >KA MI>PQBO QL > TFAB O>KDB LC EFPQLOF@ ?RFIAFKDP >KA JLKRJBKQP UMBOFBK@BA J>FK >KA PMB@F>IFPQ PR? @LKQO>@QLO IFBKQP FK@IRAB KDIFPE BOFQ>DB >QFLK>I ORPQ FPQLOF@ LV>I >I>@BP L@>I RQELOFQFBP >KA MR?IF@ >KA MOFS>QB ?LAFBP LKPBOS>QLOP LC FPQLOF@ RFIAFKDP >KA LKRJBKQP
C O N T E X T 9 8 : M A R C H 2 0 0 7 Context Cover: Howsham Mill, now back at work. See p21. A new perspective on old buildings Editorial Briefing 2 Periodically 6 TheWriter’s Voice 7 Managing change in historic urban landscapes Dennis Rodwell 8 Legal Briefing Charles Mynors 9 Supporting Columns Brian Morton 12 The local impact of renewables Sule Nisancioglu 14 The Guildford Town Mill mini-hydro project John Davey 17 Restoring the past to generate a future Jeannie Swales 21 Energy-efficient conservation at the National Trust Nicholas Kelly 24 Discussing community value Keith Emerick 27 My day with Picasso David Heath 31 Notes from the chair 34 Director’s cut 35 Membership notes 36 Vox pop 37 Book reviews 38 Products and services 41 The Institute of historic building conservation www.ihbc.org.uk Registered as a Charity Number 1061593. Company Limited by Guarantee. Registered in England Number 3333780. Registered Office: 3 Stafford Road,TunbridgeWells, Kent TN2 4QZ. IHBC Officers President David Lovie email [email protected] Chairman JohnYates email [email protected] Vice Chair Dave Chetwyn email [email protected] Secretary Richard Morrice email [email protected] Treasurer Michael Knights email [email protected] Membership Secretary Mike Lea email [email protected] Consultations Secretary Karen Holyoake email [email protected] Education Secretary John Preston email [email protected] Publicity Secretary vacant email [email protected] Law & Practice Coordinator vacant email [email protected] Director Seán O’Reilly email [email protected] Projects Officer Fiona Newton email [email protected] IHBC Committee Chairs Policy Dave Chetwyn email [email protected] Membership & Ethics Mike Lea email [email protected] Finance & Resources Richard Morrice email [email protected] Education John Preston email [email protected] Communications & Outreach Mike Brown email [email protected] Branch Officers North Geoff Underwood Tel 0191 433 3435 NorthWest Awaiting confirmation Yorkshire Keith Knight Tel 01904 658482 West Midlands Karen Holyoake Tel 01902 555625 East Midlands Roy Lewis tel 01332 591175 South Rob Parkinson Tel 01993 861680 SouthWest Colin Ellis Tel 01305 838334 East Anglia Pippa Colchester Tel 01245 437337 South East David Kincaid Tel 01227 862185 London David McDonald Tel 020 8881 6724 Scotland Charles Strang Tel 01835 822560 Wales Nathan Blanchard Tel 01285 642428 Northern Ireland Sharon BrownTel 028 9754 3087 Republic of Ireland Bernard DeeTel 00353 1 873 7226 Business Office Jubilee House, High Street, Tisbury, Wiltshire SP3 6HA England Tel 01747 873133 Fax 01747 871718 email [email protected] The tipping point for climate change seemed to come in the first few weeks of 2007. Not the tipping point at which catastrophic climate change became irreversible – we hope that point has not yet been reached – but the point at which even most of the doubters seemed to accept climate change as a reality (even though some were confident that there was still time to reverse it by launching a vast silvery umbrella into space). Climate change is on the policy agenda as never before. As individuals we are being asked to calculate our carbon footprints. As economic sectors we are being asked: how many finite resources do you consume? The conservation movement has learned the importance of selling itself. When regeneration became the priority of local and central government, we showed the evidence that the sensitive adaptation of historic buildings could promote economic renewal. Another policy agenda, another opportunity.What does historic building conservation do for our finite resources? Since you ask, it conserves them. ‘Something like 24 per cent of all waste is generated by demolition and construction,’ explained the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Select Committee Report into The Role of Historic Buildings in Urban Regeneration in 2004. ‘It is simply better in sustainability terms to use and recycle old buildings than to demolish them and to build new ones.’ Fact: the production of cement creates three per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases, while traditional lime mortar actually fixes dioxide as it sets. This issue of Context provides evidence of what building conservation can contribute to saving non-renewable resources. Sule Nisancioglu (p14) explains how conservation officers are responding to householders’ planning applications for equipment associated with renewable energy. John Davey (p17) tells the story of conservation of a building and natural resources going hand in hand at the Guildford Town Mill mini-hydro project. Jeannie Swales (p21) has a similar tale fromYorkshire. And Nicholas Kelly (p24) writes about energy-efficient conservation of a former snuff mill and a ruined farmhouse by the National Trust. As JohnYates suggests (p34), the time may come when we cease to explain historic environment benefits in economic terms. Institute ofHistoricBuildingConservation No 98 March 2007 Energy-efficient conservation David Heath: my day with Picasso
C O N T E X T 9 8 : M A R C H 2 0 0 7 Context Briefing Copy deadlines Context is published five times a year, in March, May, July, September and November. Copy deadlines in 2007 are: Issue Deadline May, Issue 99 16 March July, Issue 100 18 May September, Issue 101 13 July November, Issue 102 14 September Editor Robert Cowan Editorial Coordinator Fiona Newton 21 George Street, Louth, Lincolnshire LN11 9JU Tel 01507 602567 email [email protected] Editorial Board Fiona Newton (chair) Susan Brook (treasurer) Nigel Crowe (main features) Peter de Figueiredo (book reviews) Michael Taylor (main features) Cartoons by Robert Cowan Context is distributed to all members of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. © Institute of Historic Building Conservation 2007 ISSN 0958-2746 Publisher Published for the Institute of Historic Building Conservation by Cathedral Communications Limited, High Street, Tisbury,Wiltshire, England SP3 6HA Tel 01747 871717 Fax 01747 871718 email [email protected] www.buildingconservation.com Non-member subscriptions to Context Context is available to non-members of the IHBC at an annual subscription rate, including postage, of: United Kingdom £50.00 Elsewhere £75.00 Subscription orders, together with remittances payable to Institute of Historic Building Conservation, should be sent to the IHBC Business Office at Jubilee House, High Street, Tisbury, Wiltshire SP3 6HA. The views expressed in Context are not necessarily held by the IHBC or the publisher. Neither the publisher nor the IHBC shall be under any liability whatsoever in respect of contributed articles. We gratefully acknowledge the support of firms whose advertisements appear throughout this publication.While every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this issue of Context is current and correct, neither the IHBC nor the publisher can be held responsible for any errors or omissions which may occur. St David’s Cloisters restored and reconstructed chapel to the cathedral itself, with access from the chapel and the chapel undercroft to provide a processional and contemplative space. The cloisters are linked with the interior of the cathedral by way of a doorway in the west side of the north transept. The doorway itself is of an earlier date than the cloister, possibly the 12th century, and may reflect an earlier cloister on the site. The cloisters were demolished sometime after 1549, with the dissolution, and the consequent loss of the College of the Vicars Choral. But it appears likely that the west cloister remained in place for some time. Indeed 18th century prints survive which show the west cloister wall still in place, linking St Mary’s Hall west gable and the cathedral itself, standing to a height of some seven metres. This was valuable in preparing schemes for the re-building of the cloister. This remnant of the cloister was probably abandoned in the 17th century, when the Grammar School (which had occupied it until then) took possession of the building which later became the chapter house on the south side of the cathedral proper. The present scheme for the reconstruction of the cloisters provides the four restored cloister walks with, first of all, accommodation over the west walk and east walk which provide educational facilities, meeting rooms and vestries; and beside the south walk new lavatories for the use of the The restoration and reconstruction of the cloisters of St David’s Cathedral has been an ambition of the dean and chapter since the 1920s, when the project formed a part of the then current appeal for the repair of the cathedral. The project progressed as far as the archaeological excavation of the site, exposing the foundation of the original cloisters. WD Caroe, the then cathedral architect, prepared schemes based on the evidence discovered in the excavations for the detailed restoration of the cloister walks. Lack of funds prevented any further progress at that time, although work was able to proceed on the restoration of St Mary’s Hall, to the north side of the cathedral, in the 1960s. Alban Caroe completed schemes for renewing the roof and windows of St Mary’s Hall in an uncompromising, modern style which resisted the temptations of restoration, although evidence of the original forms of the later 14th century traceries and parapets still survive in the fabric. Thanks to the vision of the present dean,Wyn Evans, and the funding made available by a new appeal launched in the year 2000, the restoration of the cloisters has now reached fruition. The original cloisters, of late 14th century date, were built as an adjunct to the chapel of the College of the Vicars Choral, now St Mary’s Hall, which stands to the north side of the cathedral. The cloisters linked the
C O N T E X T 9 8 : M A R C H 2 0 0 7 The power of prosecution Bob Kindred writes: While it has been clearly established for some time that the level of listed building enforcement activity by local authorities is lower than it should be, the IHBC has been instrumental in trying to improve the situation relating to prosecutions. Although the political profile of this issue was raised during the successful prosecution of Teresa Gorman MP in 1996, it took the notorious case of the demolition of the modernist listed house ‘Greenside’, in Virginia Water, Surrey, for questions to be asked in parliament in 2002. Two MPs were concerned about the adequacy of existing sanctions and wondered whether these needed to be increased. Consequently, the government gave assurances that it would investigate. Early in 2003 the ODPM commissioned initial research (now accessible through the DCLG website) by Philip Grover of Oxford Brookes University to evaluate this issue, whereupon the IHBC provided the essential baseline data. Grover concluded that while the levels of fines available to the courts were adequate, best practice guidance was required if local authorities were to prosecute listed building offences successfully in line with the secretary of state’s encouragement in PPG15. To prepare the guidance recommended by Grover and endorsed by the ODPM, further research was undertaken in the first quarter of 2006 by solicitors Burges Salmon. A questionnaire asked local authority members of the institute about their performance and the problems they had encountered in bringing successful prosecutions. The institute was therefore pleased that the DCLG published its Best Practice Guidance on Listed Building Prosecutions in December. Every local authority in England should now have received a copy. It is also downloadable in pdf format from the DCLG website. It is hoped that the advice will also be helpful in relation to proposed links with the recently formed National Association of Planning Enforcement (NAPE) over revisions to the RTPI’s Planning Enforcement Handbook and other related initiatives. Here is the crunch. None of this might have been possible (or certainly it would have been made very much more difficult) without the base data compiled by the IHBC with your cooperation. The original impetus for a National Listed Building Prosecution Database was the need for information during the Gorman prosecution when none existed. But the continuing database continues to rely on volunteered information from you (which page 41 of the new DCLG guidance also encourages). More information is required, especially on past cases (irrespective of the success of the outcome). The DCLG publication has already prompted submission of details of five cases from one local authority (previously not believed to be active). These have been very helpful additions. Please consider doing the same. Continue to forward details of outcomes, especially if you have not done so before. This will not only maintain the usefulness of the database but also provide a potential cross-reference to see if the new guidance does indeed encourage more prosecutions where appropriate, in the way in which we and DCLG hoped. Details of cases should be sent to [email protected]. Bob Kindred MBE was an external advisor to the recent DCLG study. The government disappoints again Bob Kindred writes: In my article in the previous issue about the Commons Select Committee Inquiry into Heritage Protection (‘We find the logic unconvincing’, Context 97, November 2007), I noted that the government was obliged to make its formal response. It had not appeared before I wrote the article. When the government response came at the end of October, it was greeted with deep disappointment but little surprise within the sector. SAVE Britain’s Heritage described it as ‘weak, badly drafted and in places factually incorrect’. David Lammy, minister for heritage at the DCMS, had given an assurance to the select committee in April cathedral, squeezed between the great buttresses which support the north aisle and north side of the cathedral, which were probably constructed in the second half of the 18th century. St Mary’s Hall, used since the 1960s as an exhibition space and to provide impromptu and voluntary teas for the cathedral, has been adapted by the addition of a new mezzanine floor and sophisticated kitchen facilities. This permits St Mary’s Hall now to be used as a restaurant for the increasing numbers of visitors to the cathedral. Peter Bird of Caroe and Partners, who is the present cathedral architect (and was formerly a conservation officer at Bath City Council), has prepared a scheme for the cloisters which is designed to reflect the historic appearance of the cloister without resorting to pastiche. The walls facing the cloister garth are all timber-framed, reflecting the character of the interior of the cathedral itself, and making the cloister garth into an internal and external space which restores the tranquillity of the cloister. The cloister walks are all built on the exposed foundations of the original buildings, and are constructed in such a way as to avoid interference or conflict with the standing historic fabric. The west wall of the west cloister has been reconstructed to its original height, in stone. The only addition which has never been present before is the new north porch, which has been added principally to provide dry, level access into the cloisters from the cathedral itself, and to provide a controlled environment for the precious carved stonework of the Romanesque north door of the cathedral. The new work inside St Mary’s Hall is unashamedly modern in appearance. The mezzanine stands on slender, raking cylindrical steel columns, and is set back from the external walls to provide a lightwell around its whole perimeter for the lower floor. The level of the mezzanine is such that visitors can now sit and enjoy views hitherto unavailable through the 14th century windows of the hall to the cathedral and to the Close to the north, an unparalleled setting anywhere in the British Isles. The Hall now provides refectory as well as exhibition space, to enhance the mission and community use of the cathedral. The work in St Mary’s Hall was completed in May 2006, ready for the summer season. The whole project was due for completion in early 2007. Jane Chamberlain was the project architect.
C O N T E X T 9 8 : M A R C H 2 0 0 7 2006 that his department would take their findings into account when preparing the Heritage White Paper (then expected in May). Since then we have waited and waited, but if the white paper in any way reflects the government’s rambling partial analysis of the select committee’s findings, the sector will have clear grounds for concern about the government’s intentions for heritage protection. The committee’s report, published in July, had been generally well received within the sector.While it had certain lacunae (some of which I identified in my last article) this was partly a consequence of a compressed inquiry timescale to meet the anticipated May date. Generally the government’s thin response of less than 20 pages accepted praise where the committee had offered it: for example, the support of Heritage Open Days, work with schools and a one-line reference to the committee’s endorsement of heritage reform. It also responded very thoroughly to the issue of the housing market renewal initiative, despite this being rather peripheral to the thrust of the inquiry. However, by lumping together its responses to the inquiry’s 57 separate recommendations, the government ignored or bypassed some issues completely and clouded (probably deliberately) rather than clarified others which the committee had been at pains to identify separately. Thus any opportunity for clarity, appreciation or commitment to the fundamental issues of heritage protection reform was lost (in relation to, for example, local authority responsibilities, skills or capacity, and especially the issue of the increasingly inadequate resourcing of English Heritage). Indeed, it seems that for English Heritage only more ‘punishment’ can be expected. The secretary of state appears to believe that pain is good for our souls and this is to be eternal. The sector’s expectations had been raised in 2006 partly as a climax to the six years we have travelled from Power of Place to the white paper via the heritage protection review, despite the secretary of state’s studied indifference. These expectations were made manifest in the evidence to the select committee, only to be deflated by the continuing delay of the white paper and worthless assurances of inclusion of a heritage bill in the Queen’s Speech. The government’s response to the select committee continues to reflect a lack of interest in heritage policy (as indeed was the case in its response to the ODPM Select Committee report on Heritage and Regeneration in 2003), and a lack of political commitment or impetus to resource it properly. Unless the heritage while paper reflects not only the apparent needs of the heritage protection review but the other wider, clearly articulated concerns of the sector (as expressed in the select committee’s recommendations), the DCMS’s (and DCLG’s) commitment fully to maintain the level of heritage protection will continue to be called into question, and the department’s battered reputation is unlikely to recover. But with the Olympics on the horizon does Tessa Jowell care anyway? We will wait and see. Bob Kindred MBE is a standing special advisor to the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.The views are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the committee. Focus on investment A report on the investment performance of listed office buildings claims to be the result of the only longterm project of its type comparing heritage and non-heritage investments. The research, carried out by Investment Property Databank, is sponsored by the Investment Property Forum, the RICS and English Heritage. The survey identified a sample of 221 offices, designated either Grade I or Grade II, and measured their performance against the 2,779 unlisted offices within a databank. The research showed that in the West End and outside central London, equivalent yields on listed buildings were in line with those of unlisted offices. In the City and midtown, equivalent yields on listed offices were 0.5 per cent below those on unlisted offices at the end of 2004. Outside central London total returns on listed offices ran slightly ahead of those on unlisted offices between 1980 and 2004. Rental growth on listed offices had matched that on unlisted offices, and listed offices had not suffered the negative yield re‑rating seen in central London, possibly because equivalent yields were never below those on unlisted offices. Over the long-term, listed offices have tended to follow the same market cycle as unlisted offices. Differences in the volatility of returns between the two types have been insignificant, indicating similar levels of risk. The main report is available on the HELM website www.helm.org.uk/ server/show/nav.10717. London Branch Conference 2007 The theme of this year’s IHBC London Branch conference, to be held on Tuesday 25 September at the Royal College of Physicians, Regents Park, London, will be ‘Renewable Energy and the Historic Environment’. The morning session will be a series of presentations setting out the issues, while the afternoon will comprise group question-and-answer sessions, providing the opportunity to gain practical advice from manufacturers of products appropriate for installing in the historic environment. Delegate rates will be £100 for IHBC members and £150 for non-members. Secrets of Castle Howard Castle Howard is running a series of special tours led by the curator, Christopher Ridgway. The Mausoleum Tour, for example, running on Thursday 19 April and Saturday 18 August, is an opportunity to visit the most mysterious building in the landscape, where generations of the Howard family have been buried in the vaults beneath the spectacular chapel. The tour also includes a visit to the interior of the Temple of the Four Winds. Neither building is normally open to the public. The Waterways Tour on Tuesday 14 August will explore the water features around Castle Howard, including the Atlas Fountain, the South Waterways, New River Bridge, and Ray Wood Reservoir. Details on www. castlehoward.co.uk.
C O N T E X T 9 8 : M A R C H 2 0 0 7 5 Periodically… This reviewer has had occasion to remark in the recent past about the strength-in-diversity within the sector. But as the extended wait for the much delayed HeritageWhite Paper continues there is no doubt, in the light of the markers set in Power of Place through to the recent Commons Select Committee inquiry, that the sector has enhanced expectations of the government, but doubts that there is the remotest possibilities of these being met. The track record of the present government, and governments throughout the 20th century, has not on the whole been a supportive one. an opportunity to review both policy and practice of the past quarter century, and potential future directions, was taken by the recent special issue of The Journal of Architectural Conservation (Vol 12, No 3). The contributions were widely drawn, beginning with a dozen short personal perspectives from such notable and diversely drawn figures as Ronald Brunskill, Michael Heseltine, fiona Reynolds and Griff Rhys Jones. Heseltine suggests a radical licensing system for both owners and professionals operating in the historic environment (with default powers only in the event of failures) and says that he wished he had thought of it when he was environment secretary. Malcolm airs looks at the legacy of WG Hoskins’ highly influential 1955 book The Making of the English Landscape; about Hoskins’ pessimism about change and how the book shaped the approach of a generation of practitioners managing the inherited historic environment. In the last half-century the political and social landscapes have changed just as much as the physical ones. airs explores the more recent imperatives of regeneration, sustainability and social inclusion, and the positive impact of the media and the Heritage Lottery fund. IHBC’s education chair John Preston’s well-argued paper identifies the skills shortages for conservation and the lack of progress in increasing the capacity of the number of professionals with conservation expertise. Preston points out that while the absence of available conservation craft skills has been quantified, there is no holistic analysis of skills needed for the sector. This is partly because government is not convinced that building conservation is a sector that deserves its support. Preston also concludes that efforts to improve skills through accreditation have not yet made a significant impact. Donovan Rypkema contrasts the uK’s largely top-down, regulation, and publicsector-driven system with the uSa’s largely local, bottom-up, incentivised system, and the uS commitment to the rights of ownership versus the British commitment to the responsibilities of stewardship. This highlights issues of local responsibility that seem to reflect a recent preoccupation of Tessa Jowell. But, given the government’s centralising instincts, such sentiments (or resources or practical measures) seem unlikely to stand any chance of incorporation into the HeritageWhite Paper. These aspects are also covered by your reviewer, in a paper that looks at the history of indifference (or outright hostility) of Westminster to the historic environment with a consistency that can be traced back to the late 19th century. It also looks at the more recent penalisation of English Heritage for its inability to meet the government’s deregulatory and re-organisational expectations, and the reduction in resources available due to an erroneous belief that the sector’s problems have been solved by the largess of the lottery. one consistently overlooked aspect of the heritage sector in terms of significance, protection and resources has been historic parks and gardens. David Lambert and Jonathan Lovie (respectively the former and current conservation officers of the Garden History Society) argue authoritatively that, while the 1987 hurricane was indeed an ‘ill wind’ and the voluntary sector county garden trusts have thrived, English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery fund are cutting resources, the National Trust is struggling to maintain standards, and big, damaging leisure proposals are on the rise again. Not everything in the garden is rosy. adamWilkinson, secretary of SaVE Britain’s Heritage, demonstrates how important it is for committed, educated and inspired organisations such as his own to react effectively to threats and to lead effective campaigns. His article charts many of SaVE’s causes célèbres. These include the Housing Market Renewal Initiative and concerns about the government’s refusals to list; conservation area demolition controls; buildings-at-risk; and the largely forgotten issue of maintenance. The issue of The Journal of Architectural Conservation concludes with an evaluation by Peter Brimblecombe and Carlota Grossi of the comprehensive scientific research agenda needed to balance past achievements with emerging issues such as the lack of an overall research strategy, (unsurprisingly) inadequate funding, and poor translation of research into policy and practice. SaVE is well known for fighting seemingly lost causes. Its latest Newsletter (November 2006) proudly celebrates the vindication of its fight to save the c1916 Span four at Paddington Station in London from demolition and replacement with an office block. all hope had seemed lost in the face of a mighty alliance of Network Rail, Westminster City Council and CaBE, while English Heritage and the Victorian Society accepted the case for demolition. SaVE brings its particular and singular perspective on the Housing Market Renewal Initiative (Pathfinders)
6 C O N T E X T 9 8 : M A R C H 2 0 0 7 up to date, quoting at length the planning inspector’s criticisms of the proposals for Darwen, Lancashire. There is also a devastating critique of the DCMS response to the Commons Select Committee inquiry which SaVE describes pithily as ‘weak, badly drafted and in places factually incorrect. Some issues were avoided or completely ignored.’ Very much this reviewer’s analysis in this issue of Context (see The government disappoints again p3). There are two items of particular note in Theatres, the magazine of the Theatres Trust (Issue 10,Winter 2006). The first item is on design and access statements. The trust’s architecture advisor, Mark Price, explains what the new regulations will mean for theatres, and provides several illustrated examples of the issues involved. The second is on identifying theatresat-risk. one of the trust’s priorities over the next three years is to promote better planning and develop new tools to help understand the issues facing theatre buildings and theatre uses. one such proposed tool is a theatre buildings-atrisk register, which will include existing and former theatres, and consider immediate, medium and long-term risks associated with their fabric and maintenance. However, unlike other buildings-at-risk registers, it will also consider risks associated with changes of use from theatres and in ownership, and potential risks from unassociated local development, the practical implications of which are not readily apparent to those outside the industry. The latest issue of the 6 Building Conservation Group Journal (No 44, December 2006) also devotes space to theatres. It explains the recent refurbishment of Bertie Crewe’s 1913 Grade II listed Palace Theatre, Redditch and splendidly illustrates it on the cover. The rescue and remodelling of this building followed a long inter-war and post-war period of increasingly unsympathetic uses. There are useful summary reports on training courses for surveyors under the banner ‘Inspecting Residential Dwellings: historic and traditional buildings’. one course undertaken by DavidWatt and Richard oxley dealt with the fundamentals of appropriate repair and the sympathetic application of traditional methods. another, run by Stephen Callaghan and Ian Rock, dealt with the legacy of the huge stock of Victorian and Edwardian properties (accounting for one in six of all uK houses). It examined the arguments for demolition and the much stronger ones for conservation. There is also an item on the conclusions of a significant report, commissioned by the National Trust, on the disposal of heritage assets by public bodies. In general the research found that central government departments were disposing of heritage assets to raise revenue, while local authorities were disposing of heritage assets primarily because they could not maintain them. Disposals often took place with too little regard to heritage value. The RICS, which produced guidance on statutory asset management in 2005, has produced new guidance. Highlights of Cornerstone, the newsletter of the Society for the Protection of ancient Buildings (Volume 27, No 4, 2006) investigates some of the issues relating to the potential impact of climate change; the relationship of traditional materials and energy saving (‘Why old makes environmental sense’); traditional, environmentally friendly paints; the visual impact of solar panels; sustainability concerns about the availability of water reed for thatching (90 per cent of which is imported); difficulties over the interpretation of the latest revision to Part L of the building regulations (the second revision in four years), handicapping unlisted buildings in conservation areas. Emily Morris reports on the gradual emergence of the architectural treasures of Cuba after half a century of benign neglect, stimulated by increased tourism. Sarah Bancroft highlights legal action and public pressure to redirect the conservation of the Red fort in Delhi, following extremely damaging ‘restoration’. an interesting diagnostic technical development is clearly explained in Natural Stone Specialist (No 23, November 2006). Ground penetrating radar is increasingly being used as a nondestructive investigation technique for historic buildings. It is used particularly to locate cramps, dowels, beams and bolts, and to measure the thickness of facing stones. George Tuckwell explains the technique. He recommends how to design surveys and how to treat the data received. He gives case examples of ground penetrating radar in use at Middlesborough Town Hall Clock Tower and Rochester Castle. It seems rather odd that the November issue of Natural Stone Specialist should feature sunbathers admiring Eastbourne Pier. This relates to the oDPM Select Committee’s consideration of the future of coastal towns. JohnWalton considers
C O N T E X T 9 8 : M A R C H 2 0 0 7 7 (particularly those of the post-war era), and the DfES initiative to overhaul or replace all secondary school buildings in the near future, JonWright highlights the possible demolition of the impressive and experimental Geoffrey Chaucer School in Southwark (designed by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon, opened in 1958 and listed Grade II in 1993). an analogy between the layout and the (later) Starship Enterprise (yes really!) is one of the more interesting observations in very persuasive advocacy for retention. as Southwark Council wishes to fasttrack a scheme (combined with another school on the same site for a flagship city academy – a Blair pet project), the society had to act quickly to promote workable alternatives. also of note is the start of the society’s assessment of buildings from the 1970s for listing. Eligible under the 30 year rule, they could include Richard Rogers’ Lloyds Building (1978-86). The society is anxious that this exercise should not be London-centric: it needs to achieve national coverage. and what of the architectural unknowns? The public debate starts here. another report in the Twentieth Century Society Newsletter tells of the society’s successful campaign last July to get spot-listed the quite extraordinary (to this reviewer) Society of friends Hall in Croydon. It is an early 20th century, arts and crafts masterpiece by William Curtis Green, with an innovative but economical open timber roof structure (illustrated). The newsletter also reports on a visit to New Delhi and Rajastan, chronicling striking 20th century buildings ranging from Lutyens’ Viceroy’s Palace to Le Corbusier’s assembly Building. finally, as I report from time to time, the Newsletter of the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art (Issue 23, December 2006) has announced research awards probably leading in due course to publications of interest to conservation professionals. These include research by Geoff Brandwood towards a monograph on the Victorian architects Paley and austin; to Julian Luxford related to analysis of the architectural and sculptural iconography of the west front of Peterborough Cathedral; and publication grants towards The English Parsonage in the Early Nineteenth Century (Timothy Brittain-Catlin); Dissent and the Gothic Revival (Bridget Cherry); the Buildings of Scotland Trust for the Perth and Kinross ‘Pevsner’; and the Public Monuments and Sculpture association for The Public Sculpture of Bristol. Bob Kindred MBE how their conservation can be used as a springboard for regeneration. as he encapsulates it: ‘The Victorian seaside legacy across Britain has been contested territory in an enduring struggle between traditionalist topophiles and profitmaximising entrepreneurs.’ Walton does not make it sound very nice and much of it is not, but the society is promoting a Holiday at Home campaign to encourage more visits and greater appreciation. It is not all doom and gloom. Research by Sheffield Hallam university shows that in the past 30 years, larger seaside resorts have generated more jobs than they have lost. The issue also examines the ambivalence to the conservation of Victorian seaside architecture. over the past decade and a half a string of official reports, such as Shifting Sands and Turning the Tide, have charted the decline of seaside towns while encouraging regeneration through investment in the built environment and architecture. allan Brodie and GaryWinter conclude the sequence with a discussion of their fouryear research project on the history of English resorts for English Heritage. a worthwhile issue for anyone involved in, interested in or responsible for seaside towns. another really good issue of the Twentieth Century Society Newsletter (Winter 2006–7) opens with a plea for candidates for a new chairman to succeed Gavin Stamp, who drove the society forward effectively for over 20 years. Stamp will be a hard act to follow. This issue of the newsletter shows how effective statutory amenity societies can be in promoting their cause. Having identified a serious concern about the fate of 20th century schools From ‘The Walled Eye: Sir Hugh Casson visits Peking’, Architectural Review, February 1955. PEKING is a planned city. Pay it the compliment then, if you can, of arriving by air. For it is a place to be seen first from above – a box, as it were, with the lid off. There it sits, flat, four square, ruled and patterned, grey-roofed and golden tiled, bang in the middle of a sepia landscape, as self-assured and inexplicable as a dog biscuit on a beach. Why is it there and not somewhere else? There seems to be no river ford, no harbour, no mountain pass to justify the choice of a site. But of course to ask such a question is a sign of western obtuseness. Only a barbarian would forget that Peking is not so much a city as a temple. It is the home of the Son of Heaven, and as such it has been placed and planned by magic and ritual rather than by common sense or the demands of trade. Yet once on the ground and within the safety of those great mudbaked walls built to shut out the bandits, the mountain winds, the rhythmic drudgery of peasant life, Peking becomes more than a city, more than even a temple. It becomes a metropolis – a place that has its own laws, character, history and destiny. Although of course it can supply everything, from coffins to fried fish-lips, that any one of its three million citizens may need at any hour of the day or night, Peking does not live by trade alone. A true metropolis, it is concerned with things of the mind. It is the home of learning and entertainment. It is international. Like a great exhibition it is full of crowds, music, clamour, wealth, squalor, bustle and glare. City, temple, metropolis, Peking is all of these, but to the world it is famous most of all as a work of art. There are perhaps more beautiful cities in the world, but few surely more immediately comprehensible at a glance. Climb the 0 feet to the ramparts of the Tartar city wall, and look northwards. Behind you stretches the countryside, its flat fields peppered with disused temples, and half-ruined tombs, with smoking factory chimneys, and busy building sites – a landscape being visibly transformed and in which the white noodles hung up in the sun fly like flags of surrender.
C O N T E X T 9 8 : M A R C H 2 0 0 7 UNESCO conference in St Petersburg Managing change in historic urban landscapes The extent to which established concepts and management tools meet the broadening holistic perception of historic cities and the expanding level of threats to them is the subject of increasing international debate. Existing charters and recommendations that address historic urban areas date back more than 30 years. They did not anticipate the prominence today of the agendas of intangible cultural heritage and of sustainability – and the emphasis on sense of place, community belonging, and cultural identity and diversity. Nor do the charters and recommendations consider historic cities as a whole. They are inadequate to meet major current challenges such as highrise building within or next to historic city centres, iconic modern architecture, and dramatic socio-economic change in many non-Western countries. Following on from the 2005 Vienna Memorandum (see Context 97, November 2006) and the 2006 Jerusalem Statement, theWorld Heritage Centre embarked on a threeyear programme to the objective of consolidating the text and adopting a UNESCO Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Historic Urban Landscapes in 2009. The concept of historic urban landscapes is not new, but the perception of its potential pivotal relevance today is. The concept draws from experience in urban conservation and cultural landscapes, seeking to encompass values relating to intangible heritage, genius loci, authenticity and integrity. From 29 January to 2 February 2007, St Petersburg hosted the first of six UNESCO regional conferences, each to be held this year, each in a different continent. Peter Fowler, former world heritage adviser, showed that most historic cities were organic and associative. They were the result of huge human effort over a long period of time, most of which was both anonymous and unselfconscious. Successful management was not about the individual beads on the necklace but the necklace as a whole, he said. Francesco Bandarin, director of the World Heritage Centre, spoke of the need to distance ourselves from the notion that ‘the city is a monument; unfortunately it is inhabited’. He spoke of the issues and values that needed to be taken into account if we were to conserve more. Professor JeremyWhitehand of the University of Birmingham stressed the importance of understanding urban morphology in historico-geographical terms. Others expanded on the opportunity that this offers for using socio-economic factors as the basis for managing change as a continuous cultural process. Professor Bruno Gabrielli of the University of Genoa pointed to a ‘crisis of legitimacy’ in the theory and practice of urban planning. He called for a new approach that incorporated societal values. St Petersburg is a prime example of a historic city whose socio-historical parameters have changed dramatically in just 300 years, yet whose historic urban landscape has not. Built by Peter the Great as the capital of an empire, the scene of revolution, civil war and siege, and their associated degradation, dilapidation, suffering and squalor, it remains one of the most beautiful and best-preserved cities in the world. One of the key characteristics of its historic urban landscape is its horizontality, and the relationship this reinforces between people and the city’s streets, canals and riverbanks. The conference coincided with local, national and international controversy over the almost 400-metre high office tower (designed by architect RMJM) that Gazprom proposes to construct just across the Neva from the 18th-century Smolny cathedral and convent. Rémi Prud’homme, emeritus professor at the University of Paris XII, likened the proposed tower to a phallic symbol of corporate enterprise. The project focused delegates’ attention on the need for a concept to enable historic cities to be managed effectively in the age of globalisation. Historic urban landscape is an embracing term that is intended to encapsulate our understanding of the city in holistic terms. The fact and focus of this St Petersburg conference reflected the dynamics of the 1972 World Heritage Convention and the determination of UNESCO to link conservation and sustainability in the context of historic cities. Dennis Rodwell, architect-planner and cultural heritage consultant The River Neva, St Petersburg. The historic landscape is threatened by Gazprom’s proposed office tower. The triumphal double arch in the General Staff Headquarters building that links Palace Square to Nevsky Prospekt
C O N T E X T 9 8 : M A R C H 2 0 0 7 LEGAL BRIEFING Unlisted buildings and conservation areas Charles Mynors considers two legal decisions relating to buildings, neither listed nor in a conservation area, that were thought by some to be worthy of preservation. Many of the decisions of the courts relating to the built heritage concern listed buildings. But there are many other buildings and areas that are of architectural or historic interest, and that are thought by some to be worthy of preservation. The two decisions noted here both relate to the effect of proposed development in inner London – the first (R (England) v Tower Hamlets LBC) concerns the loss of a historic loading canopy on a canal-side warehouse, neither listed nor in a conservation area; the second (R (Sager House) v Secretary of State) the carrying out of development affecting views from a conservation area. Demolition of unlisted buildings The Tower Hamlets case related to a canopy, built in 1964, to a pattern of which there were only three examples in the London area. Attempts had been made, unsuccessfully, to persuade English Heritage to recommend it for listing. It was to be demolished in the course of constructing a substantial housing development, for which planning permission had been granted. The High Court granted an injunction preventing its demolition, three days before it was due to take place, and considered the matter fully some two weeks later. The grounds of the application to quash the permission were, first, that the local authority committee had not been directed to consider the policy in the London Plan relating to the Blue Ribbon Network; and, second, that it had misunderstood the provisions of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) relating to the demolition of unlisted buildings. The application for an injunction failed, because the provisions of section 55(1A)(a) of the Planning Act and the TCP (Demolition – Description of Buildings) Direction 1995 made under section 55(2)(g) together had the effect that the demolition of an unlisted building in such a case was not development, and therefore did not require planning permission. Nevertheless, the attempt to have the permission quashed continued. The claimant felt that, if it succeeded, the council might decide that it wanted a development in accordance with the Blue Ribbon approach, and that the developer might therefore possibly decide that it was not in its interest to demolish the canopy. The relevant policy in the London Plan
10 C O N T E X T 9 8 : M A R C H 2 0 0 7 thus stated that ‘the uses of the Blue Ribbon Network and land alongside it should be prioritised in favour of those uses that specifically require a waterside location. These uses include water transport, leisure, recreation, wharves and flood defences.’ That policy was not quoted in the committee report, but no development in the relevant categories had ever been suggested for the site; the failure to refer to it was thus not particularly significant. Nor was there any chance of a scheme coming forward that retained the canopy – indeed, if planning permission were to have been refused on that basis, the refusal would almost certainly have been overturned on appeal, with costs. Accordingly, the present application to quash the permission would be rejected. This situation is not unusual. A developer wants to obtain planning permission for a redevelopment scheme that involves the demolition of an unlisted building that is of some, but not great, interest. Local people argue that, if permission is refused, there is just a chance that a scheme might come forward to retain the building. However, first, that on its own is not a good enough argument to justify permission being refused; and, second, unless and until the building in question is listed, or included within a conservation area, there is no mechanism to enable its demolition to be prevented. Those responsible for preparing policies might also note the observation of the court – which applies more widely than just to the London Plan – that ‘there are a large number of policies in the Plan, and I hope it is not an unfair comment that many of them seem to be saying much the same thing, in perhaps slightly different words, and whether it is necessary to have so many different policies in a planning document is a matter which should perhaps be considered. These documents are getting longer and longer, and more and more detailed, and perhaps more and more confusing for those who have to apply them.’ Views out from a conservation area Meanwhile,overontheother sideofLondon,permission was sought for a major residential redevelopment in Chelsea. Unusually, the site concerned was not in a conservation area (there is very little land in Chelsea in that category) but it was of course near one – indeed near two. The inspector at the ensuing appeal identified as one of the two issues the effect of the proposed development on the two conservation areas. He dismissed the appeal on the basis of the harm likely to be caused by the proposed development on the views from and setting of the Royal Hospital Conservation Area. In the course of his decision, he noted that there were some views in which the effect of the proposed development would be an enhancement (albeit possibly a limited one) of the conservation area in question; some where it would be neutral; and some in which it would be detrimental – the latter by virtue of the scale, height, bulk and materials, and the effect of those on the setting of the conservation area which the site closely abutted, such that the area would be neither preserved nor enhanced in terms of its character or appearance. The inspector weighed up all of those different impacts, and came to the conclusion that the benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the harm he had identified. This led to a challenge to the High Court on a number of related grounds. First, it was claimed that the inspector put too great an emphasis on the sitespecific guidelines that had been prepared by the council – not least in respect of the views from the Royal Hospital Conservation Area. However, the court considered that it was pre-eminently a matter for the inspector to decide what weight to give the guidelines. Second, it was said that the inspector had failed to take account of a number of factors relating to the conservation area – including the negative impact on the area caused by the existing building on the site; the
www.ihbc.org.ukRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=